Democrats versus Republicans

[camaraderie]

Giu...you have been designated a Threado-Porto Terrorist by Condoleeza Rice.
Our new found French friends have volunteered to deal with this threat. Don't leave your portholes open!! (g)

[PBzeer]

Giu - is this what happens to you after extended cruising? No wonder you what to race. I have heard though, they're doing a remake of One Flew Over the Cuckoo Nest, so perhaps you have a future in show biz

[sailaway21]

Fred Thompson has apparently made Social Security reform an integral part of his campaign. Fer or agin' him, it's a ballsy move given the history of those who've attempted to take on the subject.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...l?mod=rss_free

[Sailormon6]

When President Bush suggested that we depose Saddam Hussein, Jacque Chirac, among others, dismissed Bush as a mere "cowboy." He believed, and perhaps secretly hoped, that President Bush would fall flat on his face. It fed Jacques Chirac's massive ego to demean the President of the world's last superpower. President Bush's response was, "We'll do it with your help, or without it."

While President Bush was successfully waging war against tyrants and religious fanatics, protecting the homeland and nurturing a long, bullish economy, liberals in this country and around the world were waging an unrelenting war against the President. They were convinced he was stupid, despite the fact that he was smart enough to beat their best political strategists and two of their best candidates, a Nobel prize winner, and their closest approximation to a war hero. The brutality of their attacks became apparent when the President's father, a real war hero and veteran of many political battles, was brought to tears by the humiliating accusations being heaped upon his son.

Flash forward to the present. The "coalition of the willing," led by President Bush, has succeeded, and the whole world loves a winner (except, of course, the world's most unapologetic leftists). This stupid cowboy accomplished what his detractors thought could not be done, especially by him, and he did it without their help. Liberals everywhere are due for a large helping of humble pie, but I don’t think most of them have figured that out yet.

When the American people at large come to recognize the truly great accomplishments of this President, the Democrats might suddenly realize that their whole strategy of running against the "stupid, evil George Bush" has been undermined, and that might leave their next presidential candidate on very shaky ground. Eventually, the American people will come to that realization. The question is, will it happen in time to affect the outcome of the next election, and will the Republicans be smart enough to make it happen?

The Republicans cannot win the next Presidential election if they run from the President’s record, as most appear to be doing. It would only make sense for the Republicans to run from the President’s record if he had no significant record of accomplishments. President Bush has a prodigious record of military and economic achievements to which Republicans can point with justified pride.

Republican candidates who run from the President’s record think that, by ignoring him, they can avoid having his "unpopularity" rub off on them. That’s about as unrealistic as passing gas in a crowd and hoping nobody will notice. You don’t win a debate by ignoring your opponent’s strongest arguments and most favorable contentions. You win a debate by confronting your opponent’s best arguments head-on and embracing them, and turning them in your favor. By doing so, you undermine your opponent’s strongest positions. The Democrats are relying on the President’s "unpopularity" to win the White House. If the Republicans play their cards right, and nominate a sound, capable candidate who aligns himself with President Bush, and if they can bring the American people to appreciate the President’s great accomplishments (which shouldn’t be difficult, as his accomplishments speak for themselves), not a Democrat in the current field would stand a chance of winning the White House.

If the Republican candidates have the fighting spirit of George Bush, they can win the White House. If they shrink from the battle, or meekly accept the campaign of liberal slurs against the President without challenging them, then they don’t deserve to win.

[xort]

sailormon
Do you run one of the major broadcast networks?
If not, your message will largely go unheard. Something like 90% of the people who work in journalism are democrats. I've run into plenty of them and they are virulent GWB haters. It will take 50 years before GWB gets any credit, if ever.
The Republican candidates are not running from GWB, they are running from the press.
And to think the dems want to re-enact the fairness doctrine. Talk about "Newspeak". Orwell would be proud.

Lets not forget that with a dem in the whitehouse, the fairness doctrine can be enacted by presidential action, no votes necessary.

[sailaway21]

Sailormon makes very good points. The Democratic congress and the joined-at-the-hip MSM have not figured out yet that we're winning in Iraq, by any measure. Their distress is signaled by the trumpeting of the marginly useful statistic that this year was the most deadly in Iraq. But the trend is what counts. Week before last there were zero deaths in Anbar province, previously known as the Iraqi contender for most dangerous place on earth. WE'RE WINNING! Americans grow tired of losing; we've got room in our hearts for one lovable loser, the Chicago Cubs, and even there we'd just as soon pretend that they are really pretending to be trying to win. Progress is being made, progress that will allow the nascent Iraqi government to make it's own progress. The American voter get's it and they know which party is the party of defeat.

Notice that the Democratic presidential canidates are mumming up on the subject of Iraq along with the MSM? It wouldn't do to have too many recent sound bites out there calling for immediate withdrawal from an unwinnable war. But it is their baggage, nevertheless.

The Democratic field is pretty well set. You've got the "naked ambition with a pumped up resume" canidate versus the "I'm pretty new here, cut me some slack, and where's the rest room?" canidate. The lesser planets will soon be only viewable on Star Trek re-runs. It appears that Hillary has the nomination in hand if she can just avoid actually commiting to something in public. That little problem of "Driving with Wet-backs" she got into does not bear repeating. Eliot Spitzer doesn't play that well in New York, he's the reason people in Peoria are glad they're in Peoria.

There's just one eensy-weensy little problem with the Moose Butt Party"s presumptive canidate. 50% of the populace think she reminds them of their ex-wife! Let's face it, justified or not, half the American populace think of Hillary the same way the kids thought of Miss Balbreaker in Porky's. "Negatives" are more important than "positives" in politics and Hillary's shopping cart is full of 'em.

The plus for Republicans in all of this is that their primary battles are just starting to heat up. And after they're over, the eventual nominee is going to be able to jettison the issue baggage of his opponents, focusing only on his own issues. Hillary is going to be stuck with what she's always been stuck with; Hillary.

A good article below on why Dems should be nervous, very nervous.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...etting_nervous

[Sailormon6]

Xort,
I don’t run a broadcast network. As you correctly point out, Republicans can’t rely on an unbiased press to get the message out. But, when a member of the media holds a live microphone in the face of a Republican presidential candidate, he can’t and won’t stop the candidate from touting the accomplishments of the Bush administration. If all or most of the candidates praise the accomplishments of the Bush administration, it will open the eyes of a lot of voters. If the Republican National Committee pays for political commercial time, the networks have to play whatever tape recorded message they are given. That’s the only way we have ever been able to get our message out. It isn’t difficult to imagine a political message that shows the flag, and the troops, and the fallen World Trade Center, and the "Mission Accomplished" sign, Khalid Sheik Muhammad in handcuffs, Saddam Hussein getting his beard checked for lice, and all those symbols that liberals are afraid we will use. Liberals have created an image of American defeat. It shouldn’t be too difficult to change that to an image of profound success, because the liberal-created image is, quite simply, untrue. When coupled with the strength of our economy, people will have a difficult time imagining why we should let the liberals have a crack at messing it all up. It can be done, but it will require unity among Republican candidates and voters alike, a quality that used to characterize the GOP. It will also require that we return to Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak evil of another Republican." Some of us like to criticize our fellow Republicans, because it feeds our ego to show that we, unlike the Democrats, are open-minded. But, when a respected conservative like Sean Hannity launches an unrelenting daily, three-hour tirade against the President or other Republican because of his position on the immigration issue, for example, that tirade has an inordinate effect on Republican opinion, and it undermines support for Republicans generally. It’s far more damaging to hear a respected Republican criticize a Republican than to hear a Democrat do it. It’s ok to disagree with the President or other Republicans, but, do it in the privacy of your own mind. Let the Democrats and the pundits vocalize those criticisms. There are plenty of them who will be delighted to do so. You don’t see the Hillary supporters criticizing Hillary, or the Obama supporters criticizing Obama. We Republicans should try to be at least as smart as the Democrats about such things.

[camaraderie]

Sailorman6...I'm gonna disagree with you. Bush has absolutely deserted the party on immigration issues and if we want the next Republican President (or the current candidates) to take real action...we need to make not doing so painful. The dems may criticize Bush on immigration but from an even more liberal viewpoint. Closing our borders and getting illegals out of our country is the 2nd biggest task facing any new president. Sorry...but I've been greatly disappinted by Bush on this and many other issues and the BIG danger for repubs in the coming election is that the general electorate thinks THIS is what republicans do when they get into office.
Dems criticize other dems all the time...hell, Cindy Sheehan is running against Pelosi!!
Silence is the biggest danger to any political party.

[tenuki]

If the press was truly liberal they wouldn't be supporting Hillary.

[camaraderie]

Hah! You just proved my point to Sailorman Tenuki...thanks!
My own opinion is that they are truly liberal but not REALLY liberal! They'd rather win than hold to principles! (g)